TIIIEF, PENITENT, ON THE CROSS (Luke xxiii. 39-43). It has been assumed that this man had been very wicked ; that lie continued so till he was nailed to the cross ; that he joined the other malefactor in insulting the Saviour ; and that then, by a miracle of grace, he was transformed into a penitent Christian. But this view of the case seems to involve some misconception of the facts, which it may not be inexpedient to indicate. Whitby says, Almost all interpreters that I have read here say that this thief began his repentance on the cross.' With regard to his moral character, he is indeed styled by the Evangelist one of the malefactors (Kalcoinot) who were led with Jesus to be put to death' (ver. 32) ; but the word is evi dently used aotacrrucii) s—i.e. malefactors as they were considered. St. Matthew (xxvii. 44) and St. Mark (xv. 27) call them Xvorat ; but this word de notes not only robbers, etc., but also brigands, rebels, or any who carry on unauthorised hostilities, insurgents (Thucyd. iv. 53). Bishop Maltby ob serves, in his sermon on the subject, that these naxorip-yoi were not thieves who robbed all for profit, but men who had taken up arms on a principle of resistance to the Roman oppression, and to what they thought an unlawful burden, the tribute money ; who made no scruple to rob all the Romans, and when engaged in these unlawful causes, made less difference between Jews and Romans than they at first meant to do' (Sermons, 1819-22, vol. i.) Insurrection was a crime, but it was a crime a person might have committed who had good qualities, and had nitaintained a respect able character. Again, this man's punishment was crucifixion, which was not in use among the Jews, and inflicted by the Romans not on mere thieves, but rebels. Barabbas had been one of these ; and though he lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection,' Mark (xv. 27) has the same word, robber,' which is applied to him by St John (xviii. 40). It is most probable that these malefactors' were two of his companions. Our Lord was condemned under the same charge of insurrection (Luke XXiii. 2) j and the man whose case we are considering says to his fellow-sufferer, Thou art under the same sentence,' ex, T Cg an-LP Kpip.art, and admits that they both were guilty of
the charge, while our Lord was innocent of it (Luke xxiii. 40, 41). It is impossible then to determine the degree of his criminality, without knowing what provocations he had received under the despotic and arbitrary rule of a Roman governor such as Pilate, how far he had been active, or only mixed up with the sedition, etc. The notion that he was suddenly and instantaneously converted on the cross is grounded entirely upon thegeweral state ment of Matthew : The thieves also which were crucified with him cast the same in his teeth' (xxvii. 44) ; whereas St. Luke, in his relation of the inci dent, is more exact. Instances of St. Matthew's style of speaking, which is called amplification, abound in the Gospels, and in all writers. Thus, the soldiers brought him vinegar' (Luke xxiii. 36 ; John xix. 29) ; one of them did so' (11.1att. xxvii. 48 ; Mark xv. 36). The disciples had indigna tion' (Matt. xxvi. 8) ; some of them"' (Mark xiv. 4) ; one of them' (John xii. 4). So in Mark xvi. 5, Matt. xxviii. 2, there is mention of one angel only ; but in Luke xxiv. 4, John XX. 12, there is mention of two. It is also far from certain that either his faith or repentance was the fruit of this particular season. He must have known something of the Saviour, otherwise he could not have said onb, drorov IrpaEe, he hath done nothing amiss' He may have been acquainted with the miracles and preaching of Jesus before he was cast into prison ; he may have even conversed with him there. He was convinced of our Lord's Messiah ship : Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.' His crime possibly consisted of only one act of insubordination, and he might have been both a sincere believer, and, with this one exception, a practical follower of Christ. Koecher (ap. Bloomfield, Recen. Synop.) tells us that it is a very ancient tradition that the thief was not con verted at the cross, but was previously imbued with a knowledge of the gospeL See Kuinoel, Mack night, etc.—J. F. D.